Favorite Schools

Favorite Teams

Susquehanna Township superintendent files complaint against school board members suing district

Police called to news conference at Susquehanna Township School District administration offices

Susquehanna Township schools Superintendent Susan Kegerise is asking a Dauphin County judge to order that school board Vice President Jesse Rawls Sr. and school board member Mark Sussman â who are suing the district â cannot participate in discussions or votes about that lawsuit. Bret Keisling, attorney for Sussman and Rawls in the lawsuit, is pictured Nov. 1 speaking outside the Susquehanna Twp. School District administration offices where he had called a news conference on his clientsâ then-anticipated lawsuit. At right, Rawls, left, school board President John Dietrich, center, and Sussman listen as Keisling talks.
Dan Gleiter | dgleiter@pennlive.com

Susquehanna Township School District Superintendent Susan Kegerise is asking a Dauphin County judge to order that two school board members who are suing the district cannot participate in discussions or votes about that lawsuit.

Kegerise also is seeking the permanent injunction to keep those members — Vice President Jesse Rawls Sr. and board member Mark Sussman — from receiving information regarding defense strategy, tactics or settlement of the lawsuit they filed in November.

A hearing on the injunction has been set for 10:30 a.m. Thursday in front of Dauphin County Judge Deborah Essis Curcillo, according to her office.

Sussman and Rawls filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 25 against the school district, school board and Kegerise in her official and individual capacities. They claim in the suit that Kegerise’s contract violates their First Amendment rights, as well as federal and state law.

Kegerise's complaint, filed Friday, raised some questions that remain somewhat or entirely unanswered. Why is Kegerise taking on this issue rather than the school board? Wouldn't this legal action be solved by board members simply agreeing to step out of the room when the lawsuit is addressed? And, since Kegerise filed the legal paperwork with her personal attorney, is she paying for the cost of the legal proceeding?

When asked why Kegerise was getting involved in what appeared to be a matter meant for the school board president, Jason Kutulakis, Kegerise’s personal attorney, pointed out Kegerise was a defendant in Rawls and Sussman’s lawsuit and a board member by statute.

In response to Kegerise's complaint, Bret Keisling, the Harrisburg attorney representing Rawls and Sussman, said the two school board members have been asking legitimate questions. However, he said Kutulakis and the school district’s solicitor — King, Spry, Herman, Freund & Faul, a Bethlehem firm — have been working in concert to keep the district from answering legitimate questions.

John E. Freund, III, district lawyer from King, Spry, said Keisling’s suggestion “that we are working with Dr. Kegerise's lawyers to silence individual board members is nonsense.”

“However, just like any other lawsuit where we represent a defendant, we are not going to share our strategy, tactics or mental impressions of the suit with the plaintiff,” Freund said.

Kutulakis also, in response, said via email, "There is a clear conflict of interest brought about by Messrs Rawls and Sussman suit against the district, board and doctor Kegerise and their insistence on participation in the legal discussions about the defense of the suit. This is evidenced by the opinion of (the) solicitor and insurance company for the district who is denying coverage."

Kegerise's complaint, however, makes an argument for why the court should intervene in the matter — citing alleged actions by Rawls, Sussman and their lawyer concerning the board members' refusal to recuse themselves from matters involving their lawsuit.

The complaint states that Keisling sent written correspondence Dec. 6 to Paul Blunt, who had been the district’s primary lawyer. In that correspondence, Keisling “indicated neither of his clients will recuse themselves from discussions by the Board of Directors and votes of the Board of Directors regarding the litigation," according to Kegerise's complaint.

Keisling's letter, according to Kegerise’s complaint, also said his clients intended to seek a school board vote on a resolution that neither the school board nor the school district spend taxpayer dollars to defend Rawls and Sussman’s lawsuit.

When speaking with PennLive, Keisling, however, said the letter specifically was referencing his clients' refusal to recuse themselves from that specific vote and not a general recusal.

The school district’s insurance carrier also has denied coverage because of the conflict of interest of Rawls and Sussman’s positions as plaintiffs in their lawsuit and officials with voting power over the school district they’re suing, according to Kegerise’s complaint.

Because of this, the school district’s solicitor must defend the district against any lawsuits against it and engage in settlement discussions on behalf of the district.

Additionally, Rawls and Sussman have voted with a majority of the board to create a solicitor recruitment committee. Kegerise’s complaint notes that committee would be the first step to finding a new district solicitor.

Kegerise’s complaint also notes Sussman, through email Dec. 16, requested invoices related to legal fees paid to defend the school district and Kegerise against Rawls and Sussman’s lawsuit.

At a public school board meeting the next day, Dec. 17, board members moved for Rawls and Sussman to recuse themselves from matters relating to their litigation against the district, according to Kegerise’s complaint.

Her complaint states that Sussman refused during public session and Rawls did the same in executive session.

Additionally, the school district solicitor provided a legal opinion Jan. 7 that Rawls and Sussman were “‘using their positions improperly and for an arguable private pecuniary gain’” and that they have “statutory and ethical duties to recuse themselves from School Board matters relating to the litigation,” according to Kegerise’s complaint.

The complaint also references the recent PennLive article where Sussman questioned a $6,110 check from the school district to Abom & Kutulakis.

Kegerise’s complaint notes the payment questioned by Sussman was “incurred in order to defend [her] against [Rawls and Sussman’s] federal lawsuit,” and that Sussman said the payment raised a “‘red flag’” and abstained from voting to approve the payment without review of invoices.

School board members, as part of their duties, are supposed to review and, when necessary, question where the district's money is spent.

Sussman, at the time of the Dec. 17 vote that approved the check and two others, said he didn't have enough information to vote on the payment.

NOTE: This post has been updated to include comments from Jason Kutulakis, Superintendent Susan Kegerise's personal attorney, and an additional comment from Bret Keisling, the lawyer representing two school board members who've filed a lawsuit against the school district.

Related Stories

Featured Story

Get 'Today's Front Page' in your inbox

This newsletter is sent every morning at 6 a.m. and includes the morning's top stories, a full list of obituaries, links to comics and puzzles and the most recent news, sports and entertainment headlines.

optionalCheck here if you do not want to receive additional email offers and information.See our privacy policy

Thank you for signing up for 'Today's Front Page'

To view and subscribe to any of our other newsletters, please click here.